Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 5 years ago on March 17, 2012, 9:44 p.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

267 Comments

267 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Did anyone actually read this order? The operative section, section 103, uses terms like "identify," "assess," "improve," and "foster." There are no NEW powers granted in this order. It clarifies existing priorities for cabinet departments tasked with preparedness on a number of levels, from natural disaster to domestic insurrection and foreign war.

The Examiner article this post links to makes no assessment about this order. All it does is put it next to other, more egregious, executive orders and assumes guilt by association. It's crap journalism if it even qualifies.

Lastly, there is a clause in the final section that reads like this:

Sec. 804. General Provisions.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Makes it pretty clear that this order is intended to mesh with existing powers, not create new powers. And anything the Federal government acquires under the auspices of this order must be paid for, meaning there must be enough money to afford it, whatever "it" is, ergo, "subject to availability of appropriations."

This is housekeeping and not much more. And that's why it isn't "all over the news." Everyone calm down.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Much troll ado over nothing.

Not to mention, the guy that wrote it is a "financial examiner".

Sounds like a self important title a blogger would give himself.

[-] 2 points by infonomics (393) 5 years ago

Your skepticism about financial examiner prompted me to investigate the matter. Apparently the term refers to writers with examiner.com, the publisher of the article linked. You can be an examiner too; if interested, go here: http://www.examiner.com/About_Examiner?cid=article.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Wow, it's even worse than I thought. It's ehow for punditry. I never bothered checking. Nice research.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Sounds about right.

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 5 years ago

The GOP grasping for straws by spinning off housekeeping? Color me surprised.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Bingo!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Yes I read both links, which includes the link from the government as well.

"This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law."

They say that kind of stuff when they allow torture or bomb countries we're not at war with and that didn't attack us or when they kill US citizens without charge or trial. but that's beside the point.

How old it is and being modified changes nothing about it's overall assumption of mass power. The fact that it is being clarified means that it will be used in some way... which even stated in the article is as of now "unknown."

Here's the most important section


To require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense OVER performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.


This is all just too broad and in my opinion opens up for laws that abuse power, laws we've seen passed from presidents and congress since the Bush Sr.years to the Bush Jr. years to the Obama years.

The whole point of my post is to show how the government has too much power. This isn't simply just saying "We're going to buy this stuff from companies." It's saying "We have priority and we choose allocation if needed in the name of national defense." Which could also potentially open the benefits to the 1%'s industries that sell to the government as well. And the relation to a potential war with Iran is reasonable. That would indeed be classified as national defense. The timing is odd. He didn't sign this when he amped up Afghanistan. Why is he doing something like this now?

The whole point of my post is to show abuse of big government and how the government has too much power, even when it's not a republican. They both work for the 1%. The repubs are just more obvious.

Many presidents have done a lot of wrong in the name of national defense. Information like this seems troubling. We'll see where it goes.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

The list of Secretaries and their oversight powers is simply restating that which is already codified as their scope of responsibilities. The operative clause in the section you quoted is:

"To require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense OVER performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:"

You capitalized "over," which you need to mention when quoting verbatim. And yes, "over" is an operative word, but all it does is establish priorities. There is nothing in this document that compels any private citizen or private enterprise to cede any rights to any Secretary or any department of the Federal Government. There is no compulsory provision in this whatsoever. The word "employment" means just that, work. Whether or not that work is compensated is beside the point. No private citizen or enterprise is FORCED to do anything under the authority of this executive order.

There is a Cabinet-level Secretary for practically everything in America. It's their job to be prepared for every contingency imaginable. Directing national security as the top priority may or may not be something we agree with but it's far from unusual. But in the final analysis, that's all this really does. It prioritizes national security first for every Secretary on the list but it doesn't grant any new powers and it doesn't compel any private citizen or enterprise to do anything at all.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

"To require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense OVER performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:"

Most important thing to read from this bill... now it's in 3 comments in a row. I made my argument in my previous comment. Nothing from my previous comment changes based on what you've reiterated from your first comment.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

this all sounds like the iron triangle of the industrial war complex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Indeed. It sounds a lot more like the Iron Triangle than forced slave labor.

[-] 0 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

"Nothing from my previous comment changes based on what you've reiterated from your first comment."

You're free to believe in your paranoid delusions. I'm gonna go ahead and stick with the English language. Have a nice day.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

What paranoid delusions? That the government is corrupt on many levels and abuses powers and frequently acts outside of the laws by using loose terminology to justify their illegal actions?

People called people like me paranoid when I said the patriot act would be used to abuse laws and violate people's 4th amendment rights.

I suppose I'm also just paranoid when I share information like this as well?

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

Obama is not this perfect savior a lot of people like to try and make him out to be. If the ACLU is filing lawsuits against you, you're doing it wrong.

Side note: If you have to reduce yourself to name calling to try and prove a point... it only says something about yourself. I am not paranoid or delusional. I am sharing information.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

"People called people like me paranoid when I said the patriot act would be used to abuse laws and violate people's 4th amendment rights."

You were far from alone in your fears about the Patriot Act. I was among the many opposed to the legislation from the beginning. That was new law that granted sweeping new powers. The clause you keep pointing to in this executive order doesn't come close to the language in the Patriot Act:

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

SEC. 209. SEIZURE OF VOICE-MAIL MESSAGES PURSUANT TO WARRANTS.

SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRETAP.

I don't see anything remotely like the Patriot Act in this order. I see "promote" the interests of the United States with national security as a top priority. I don't see how that's all that different than the jobs they had in the first place.

I never said Obama was a "perfect savior" and I don't know anyone who ever did, and I know lots of lefties. By saying so, you imply a childish naivete among his supporters, which is not only wrong, it's the mantra among the right wing punditocracy. There are plenty of things I'm angry at Obama for but that doesn't make this executive order more than it really is and continuing to try to make it so via guilt-by-association is a specious and dishonest exercise.

Maybe you don't understand the language as well as you think you do, I don't know. I'm not a fascist apologist or an O-bot, I'm just telling you that this order isn't the "enslave the entire populace" order that you think it is. It just isn't.

PS - Saying that one is suffering from paranoid delusions may be making an insulting judgement, but it isn't name-calling. Saying that one is a paranoid lunatic is name-calling.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Yes... compare me to the right wing pundits... because I'm somehow Glenn O'Reilly now.

I still await to hear how I've made paranoid delusions... you mind pointing out where I did that? Use quotes too.

I never once said this will be used to "enslave the entire populace." You also completely skewed my Obama comment and my patriot act comment.

You are just making outlandish assumptions now.

Newsflash: If you don't support Obama it doesn't mean you're right wing. I'm just anti-war and Obama is pro-war just like many of the repubs.

This conversation went nowhere real fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuNvxH5kSKU

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

You're the one who used their talking point. I just pointed it out.

But let's unwind for a sec. It's true that I conflated your arguments with paulbot and that's where the "enslave the entire populace" comment came from. That was an error and I apologize. However, by suggesting I thought of Obama as a "perfect savior," you were putting me in a category even before I mentioned your use of a right wing talking point. And I only mentioned it because I didn't think it was really the kind of thing you wanted to use in this discussion. If I really thought you were a conservatroll, I wouldn't have gone half this far.

So let me say this, because I accidentally conflated your arguments with paulbot, I wound up making points that were oblique to your initial point and that's where the spiral began. And that's totally my fault for reading too fast or too carelessly.

I still think you're taking this more seriously than it really is but I now see that you're talking about this more as representative of the creep of bureaucratic power than as a massive power grab. I'm less sure it's power creep than simply "rule creep." And I still think the prioritizing has everything to do with government procurement and department priorities more than anything in the private sector. But I'm sorry I accused you of seeing this as an "enslave the entire population" order.

Let there be peace between us.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Let there be peace indeed.

I only said the Obama thing because the "paranoid delusion" response is usually what I get from that type of Obama supporter when I discuss stuff that doesn't reflect Obama in a positive light. And there is that type of supporter for repub candidates too.

Let's be honest though, I in no way used right wing talking points. If i was crying birth certificate and birth control, it'd be a way different story. Hahaha good talk.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I understand and I'll meet you halfway and say your choice of talking point wasn't nearly as egregious as the type of alternatives you suggested. ;-)

All good.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

by the time you see where it goes,.....it may be too late.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

reminds me of the panic over

(hr 345 arrest protestors disrupting government functions in restricted area)

most of that was old law aswell with updated definitions

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I think it's a pattern of right wing opportunism. Somewhere in the bowels of a right wing think tank or the RNC or whatever, someone thinks they can twist the facts of some obscure regulation in a way that makes liberals or progressives or the Dems or unions or ACORN or Obama or any other leftist within earshot look like tyrants or cowards or both simultaneously. Whatever, doesn't matter, as long as it's terrifyingly paranoid and relentlessly dehumanizing.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

people are afraid because it is legal to arrest someone without informing the public

A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago.

Dr. Steve Best

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

The same people who defended the Patriot Act are the ones freaking out the most right now. It's team sports out here these days and that's where this executive order falls. It's housekeeping that freaks out the same natives who were completely docile when Bush and Co. were passing the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. Nothing new under the sun. ;-)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

I don't like an opaque government

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I don't either. The legislation is never opaque. It's the powers granted that we need to worry about. This one doesn't bother me so much. The Patriot and Homeland Security Acts are very worrisome.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

A better approach would have been to adjust the law to be more open to the rights of the first amendment. But hey adjusting laws that allow jail time for using your first amendment right... that's okay because it's just an adjustment to the already existing law. No thanks congress and Obama. Pass a better law.

You ever see that video where a woman walks into congress and tells them to do their jobs better and pass laws that benefit the people? ... yeah that's considered jail time worthy. That lady was awesome.

If a person is considered a true danger they can go through the courts and file a legal restraining order if wrong doing is found. That should be the legal process. Not them just using bold terms like "disruptive"

[-] -1 points by Paulbot (-2) 5 years ago

Yeah, I read it. "Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated."

Without compensation? Sounds like slave labor to moi.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I wouldn't go that far at all. That's definitely not what this bill is saying.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Nothing in that clause that says the work is compulsory. It's voluntary.

[-] 1 points by Paulbot (-2) 5 years ago

Show me where it says its voluntary. Are you really so naive to think that "persons of outstanding experience" would voluntarily work for nothing? Newt Gingrich respectfully disagrees.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Gingrich???

He want's all the poor kids to be slaves, all the way through public school.

All day every day.

This other thing is a matter of national security................:)

It would be short term.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

You don't think firing janitors and forcing black kids to clean bathrooms during school is a good idea? You probably think putting mirrors in space to reflect sunlight on traffic is a bad idea too.

hahahaha just joking. Gingrich is intolerable and a bane to American politics.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I'm thinkin' we should fire all the CEOs and let the kids run Wallstreet!

They'll take their bonuses in candy and video games.................:)

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

That's actually a great idea hahaha

[-] 1 points by Paulbot (-2) 5 years ago

Gingrich made a couple of million as a "consultant" for the insolvent Freddy Mac. Why didn't he offer his services for free?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Newt enjoys ripping off the taxpayer. It's what he does.

To the tune $35,000hr, even though he ain't worth a dime.

He's a freakin' libe(R)tarian at heart..

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

No, he wanted them to be PAID for their work. peacetime martial law declared on the say so of a president without the congress and senate?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

In the case of a peacetime national emergency?

Yes!!

The houses are far too busy collecting money from various lobbies, think tanks and foundations, to be concerned with the good of the nation.

The (R)epelican'ts in particular won't do it now.

Just more blowback from citizens united.

Another f*ed up (R)epelican't decision.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

what are you babbling about,.....this was signed by obama ,.........you remember him, a DEMOCRAT. citizens united has NOTHING to do with this executive order.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

So? It's explained elsewhere in this thread, that's it's mostly clarification of laws already in place.

What do have against that now?

The (R)epelican'ts merely provide proof of how screwed up both houses are, because of them.

In a national emergency requiring fast action, the (R)epelican'ts would be a useless hindrence.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

you're a dimwitted pawn of people that will speedily dump you when your usefulness is over.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

if the president were to seize and maintain power under this regulation

the people will not put up with it

nor would congress

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

I hope that it never comes to pass, THIS president , who has no use or respect for the Constitution , cannot be trusted.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

government should be transparent

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

isnt that what obama promised?

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

I'll leave that to experts who like to post and think about Obama

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Here:

"...to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation..."

Show me where it says compulsory in that statement or anywhere in the executive order. Show me one sentence, one independent clause, that suggests a person being employed has no choice in the matter. Show me how this is even remotely similar to the language of the 1917 Conscription Act:

"No person liable to military service shall hereafter be permitted or allowed to furnish a substitute for such service; nor shall any substitute be received, enlisted, or enrolled in the military service of the United States; and no such person shall be permitted to escape such service or to be discharged."

You find language that sounds even remotely like that and I'll be very interested. But I wouldn't start stockpiling an arsenal just yet, Chicken Little.

[-] -2 points by Paulbot (-2) 5 years ago

You are either an idiot or an Obama shill. "Employment" can mean whatever they choose it to mean, even conscription and the same is true for "outstanding experience and ability." The latter might apply to sweeping a broom. This EO nothing less than the arbitary power to impose Nazi Germany with the stroke of a pen.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I should have known we were headed for the Nazis in your fucked up little paranoid construct. "Employment" can include conscription!? You come up with that kind of paranoid delusion and you have the temerity call other people "idiots?" You're batshit crazy!

[-] -1 points by Paulbot (-2) 5 years ago

Yeah I'm the crazy one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s You are pure evil.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

...says the conservatroll in hyper-paranoid liberal sheep's clothing.

baaaa!

Nice video taking comments about funding first responders out of context. You're such an obvious douche. Go pick on someone your own size, gnat.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Name calling is the worst way to prove a point. I obviously disagree with the "Nazi" theory... but as the person who is right, you should take the high road.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Though I agree with you in principle, that only applies up to a point. Eventually batshit crazy just needs to be called out. ;-)

PS - I resorted to calling out the crazy for what it is only after exhausting more polite means. I think you can see that.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

True true.

lol

They go away if no one replies. Kind of like how they made Freddy disappear in that Nightmare on Elm Street movie. They just stopped thinking about him.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Good point. I ignore most of the time. I jump in now and then just to put the truth on the record. And I'll keep antagonizing the trolls when they're commenting on a worthy post. If it keeps a good post bubbling, I'll keep them bubbling. ;-)

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Triple true ha ha

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

it IS slave labor.

[-] 4 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 5 years ago

Why isn't this all over the news? Oh...that's right....sorry. Never mind.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Because there's birth control to talk about!

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Time for dream weaving/wishing/fantasizing.

What if in signing this order the President was setting up a Coup on Corrupt Corporations.

What if?

Kick fossil fuel in the balls and really get green technology moving.

Kick auto manufacturers in the Balls and get real green cars on the road.

Kick the Bankers in the Balls and remake the financial Industry.

Kick raw material suppliers in the Balls and reduce cost of new developments in technology in home building, etc etc

WHAT IF????????????????????

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

They've already been advertising fully electric cars on network television during primetime for a while. They are available.

Obama has filled his administration with bankers from Goldman Sach's...

Your what if is indeed a dreamy what if.

What if it's used for bullshit?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

That is the all to real possibility. I was just messin around to see what the troll population might say.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

hahaha understandable.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

"IF you tolerate this then your children will be next" :

respice ; adspice ; prospice ...

[-] 2 points by infonomics (393) 5 years ago

Executive orders circumvent democracy.

[-] 2 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

This is fucking sick.

It boggles my mind, that actual human beings can sit there and take this. Not only that, but come on here to justify such garbage.

Where's the uproar?!!!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 5 years ago

The below excerpt is from "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown, J.D. - Page 108 (an excellent book, btw, that every serious Occupy supporter should read).

=============

"The voters, then as now, were kept pacified with the right to vote for one of two or three candidates, all manipulated by the same puppeteers. As Indian author Arundhati Roy would complain of the election process a century later:

It's not a real choice, it's an apparent choice, like choosing a brand of detergent. Whether you buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they're both owned by Proctor and Gamble. . . . Those in positions of real power, the bankers, the CEOs, are not vulnerable to the vote, and in any case they fund both sides.

It was this sort of disillusionment with the political process that prompted Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus in Boston University's history department, to state in 2001:

For progressive movements, the future does not lie with electoral politics. It lies in street warfare -- protest movements and demonstrations, civil disobedience, strikes and boycotts -- using all of the power consumers and workers have in direct action against the government and corporations."

[-] 2 points by forourfutures (393) 5 years ago

If you're not talking about Article V and protests in states demanding they enforce the constitution and begin convening delegates, you're not serious, or badly misinformed.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I'm into a constitutional amendment, not so much on the convention.

http://www.change.org/petitions/pass-the-human-rights-amendment

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 5 years ago

Without the convention you are depending on congress, and they will do nothing against their and corporate interests.

America is 100 years overdue for an article V, which is the reason the nation is in such a mess. There should be no fear of our constitution and with proper preparation, a convention can restore a fully constitutional government. This concept is well presented here, where I learned of it from links here in the forum.

http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-constitutionAmendment-Package-Making-CONST.-Intent

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

With or without an Article V convention, you still require 3/4 of the states via referendum or the state legislatures, which is probably a tougher hurdle than 67 votes in the Senate. A convention opens the door to all kinds of nefarious proposals. A single amendment is adopted or rejected as is. I still think we're better off avoiding the convention, especially with the amount of desperation in the country and the ability of corrupt actors to simply pay for what they want. It's a noble idea but, I think, a recipe for disaster in the current climate.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 5 years ago

I guess you didn't read the link about preparatory amendment. The Article V group has really created some awesome strategy.

If we are where we are politically and economically, none of our existing government can be trusted to solve problems.

If the OWS movement became the American freedom movement, suddenly realizing that legal process is needed to get the rest of America on board, suddnely standing for something functional, THEN THE REST OF AMERICA GETS ON BOARD. That can convert to 3/4 of the states. AND, the end to the abridging of free speech. Whereupon real issues can be permanently dealt with.

That proposal is very comprehensive.** I've been looking at that post for a couple of months thinking about it.

The author proposes Americans forget about parties and simply votes for principles when voting for delegates. The delegates MUST agree to propose and ratify amendments that end the abridging of free speech, unlimited corporate campaign finance and secure voting.

WTF would we vote for a delgate that wouldn't agree to that???????

Our 2 party system is crap, complete crap. Junk it. It is the tool that has been used to manipulate us in a huge way for over 20 years in a big way. Prior to that it was a little more subtle, but still manipulation.

Our principles are almost foriegn to us, and we certainly can't get any leader, left or right to define them, let alone stand for them.

Are you getting the picture? Principles not parties.

Then, because the congress has evaded their duty for 100 years in violation of law, the Article V in all ways must have maximized democratic elections of delegates as well as voting in states on proposals (depending on commonly established opinion) and ratifications (depending). In this way the embedding of legislatiors in states that refuse to act with maximum constitutionality is compensated for.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

The American people aren't going to suddenly abandon the two party system en masse. The parties may dwindle over time if we make some significant changes in our politics, policy, education and media. But there is no point at which "the rest of America gets on board." Some will never be on board and most won't be any more impressed by the "American freedom movement" than they are OWS. A Constitutional Convention opens the door to proposals from all kinds of opportunistic entities. I think you have an extremely idealistic notion of the priorities everyone would bring to such an affair. Be very careful of what you wish for.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 5 years ago

Wow! Sincere debate on a dominant issue. I've got to jump in because I've been reading that forum page and see your point about Americans being well fixed on our 2 party system.

There is actually a "chicken and egg" issue that FOF is missing here.

The preparatory amendments will work, particuarly because of ending the abridging of freedom of speech and the press. It will work just like FOF describes, but that is after the 3 preparatory amendments are made and you are now talking about, a time before that momentous event.

Currently, Americans are too deprived of the truth to realize how important principles are. They are absorbed in the party rhetoric and can hear nothing else. Part of that rhetoric is fear of Article V, which you seem to be subject to.

We cannot fear our constitution, only assure it is well followed. The word INTENTS in Article V is the key here.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I've read Article V multiple times, thanks. What both of you are failing to grasp is that a convention is uncontrollable. Once the convention is called and the delegates show up, literally anything can happen. Any language can emerge and any document can be proposed as law. Let us take as example, another constitutional convention.

The Articles of Confederation were failing the nation. The weakness of centralized authority and failure to provide a mechanism for adequately funding the federal government prompted another convention (among several) to reform the document, primarily to fund the federal government and create more continuity among the states. The idea was to amend the Articles of Confederation, and if those delegates had done the job that their respective state legislatures had sent them there to do, we'd still have the Articles of Confederation today.

But they didn't. They recognized that the Articles were fatally flawed and set out to write a whole new document instead. That was the convention of 1787 and from that convention emerged the U.S. Constitution. We're very grateful for that convention and the sober minds involved. But anyone who believes a moment like that is either replicable or not fraught with danger in the current political context of America, is deluding themselves.

Every time a "blue ribbon panel" is appointed to study anything these days, the answer comes back more power for corporations, more privatization of government functions, lower taxes for the wealthy and higher liabilities for the working class. This has been the routine in Congress for more than three decades now. By what mechanism do you propose mitigating that problem in a constitutional convention (which will be populated by politicians)? What system will be in place to prevent some neo-con like Alan Simpson from swooping in a with a memo from Goldman Sachs that dictates how everyone in the room with an election coming up will vote?

I don't doubt that you've both expended considerable brain power on the mechanisms and process by which the laws could be reformed to form a more perfect union. But I don't believe either of you have fully thought through the implications of having a political free-for-all in the current climate. A convention is a free-for-all, like it or not. Once it's called, all rules are off the table and anything can happen. Do you believe you're just THAT persuasive? Or are you really of the mind that all Americans just want the best for each other at all times and will come to a convention for nothing but high-minded purpose and egalitarian principles? Because that wasn't even true in 1787!

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 5 years ago

Hmm, you are still not reading the link, and are not advocating anything except the same "business as usual" politics. You are still ignorant of the concept of preparatory amendments serving to hold the amendment intent to the constitution.

The notion that once a movement engages "legal process" that it will also gather much more support, seems as foreign to you as legal process is to OWS.

And by your use of the words, "Constitutional Convention" you still do not realize that Article V is a convention to propose amendments, not "rewriting" the constitution.

Currently, no politician that can be elected will stand for principles which are fully constitutional. It is time for Americans to simply say, "I stand for the republic, and it is comprised of principles", then only vote for people that can define and commit to them.

If those people are delegates to an Article V, there will be no "business as usual".

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Yes, I read the link and, while there may be a few salient points in there, it's surrounded by pedantic drivel. "Preparatory amendments?" So we go through the Herculean task of passing an amendment to the constitution simply as a preparation for doing it again? Five times? In the 220-odd years since the Constitution was ratified, a total of 17 amendments have been passed. And only 16 are operative (since prohibition was repealed). That's roughly one amendment every 13 years. And you want to pass how many in how little time? This isn't the reconstruction era when more was possible. This is a time when less is possible and you're asking for more than anyone ever has.

Whether proposed by resolution in Congress or by Convention, the process of amending the constitution remains the same. The point I'm raising is that a convention is a free-for-all. We do NOT need to define what America is. That was already done in the Declaration of Independence. We do NOT need to have the same partisan battles in a convention that happen every day in the media. And that's precisely what would happen.

If you think a convention would just be a sober affair of high-minded people acting for the greater good, you need a better education on recent American history. And by the way, the actual "constitutional convention" of 1787 was exactly the same thing. Nothing they did had the force of law until it was ratified by the states. We're all just lucky that the document that emerged from that convention was so good.

You know who didn't have a seat at the table in the 1787 convention? Corporations! Do you honestly think you'll keep their influence out now? The small amount of economic activity represented by the southern states was enough, in itself, to prevent the abolition of slavery in the original constitution. What makes you think that the same forces won't show up this time? What make you think that whatever emerges from a convention today would be any better, or even AS good?

"I stand for the Republic and it is comprised of principles" is a decades long can of worms in itself. Which "principles?" The social conservatives will want to reaffirm the alleged "judeo-christian" heritage of America, even as the secularists, atheists and agnostics are trying to eliminate religion and any mention of God completely. And while they're at each others throats, the southern white racists and the northern black radicals can do their thing, while the environmentalists try to codify civil rights for trees.

You want to see what an adult romper room looks like, call a constitutional convention in the 21st century. And good luck with that!

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 5 years ago

You'ld love to expand the topic past the simple aspects presented.

"Yes, I read the link and, while there may be a few salient points in there, it's surrounded by pedantic drivel. "Preparatory amendments?"

And specifically what problem do you have with the 3 " few salient points" the entire thread is focused on?

1) Ending the abridging of free speech. 2) Campaign finance reform 3) Securing voting systems and elections

http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-constitutionAmendment-Package-Making-CONST.-Intent

So "principles" "are a can of worms".

Ummm, has anyone called you a cognitive infiltrator yet? If not, someone needs to because you're not leaving much to think with other than "business as usual".

Also, you might try limiting the cognitive distortions, if you want to attempt being "incognito":)

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

  1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

  2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

  3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

  4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

  5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.

  6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established fact.

  7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.

  8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.

  9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

  10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

  11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.

  12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Dude, I'm the one in this conversation posting under his real name. If anything, you're the one offering cognitive dissonance, as your projection of your own tactics onto me proves. My issue with your idiotic proposal is the process, not the outcome. You will not get the outcome you desire in a convention. Period. And going through the Herculean task of getting a convention would take the wind out of the sails of everything else.

Up until now I thought your idea was the product of naive idealism but it's actually designed to destroy hope completely. If you can get a lot of people to expend their energy on a hopeless endeavor, you'll sap their energy for any more "reforms." Well, aren't you clever. Too bad you're also made out of cellophane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KulSQjjQVPE

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

So true.

For Christmas I gave my senators and congressmen a copy of the bill of rights with a bow on it with a note that says "in case you've lost your copy."

I also frequently tell them to repeal the Financial Modernization Act of '99, as well as to impeach the president for war crimes, and to repeal the certain provisions in the NDAA of 2012, provisions under AUMF, the Patriot Act, and much much more.

Sadly the list of things that NEED to be changed is too fucking long.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 5 years ago

I don't get it......since when were any of the resources in the hands of the people before this anyway? Why is everyone so surprised? You all act as if something miraculous was gonna happen with this system. Was all control supposed to be given to the people? So, when did the "people" ever have control over anything in this country in the first place other than those it benefited who thought they were a part of special allotted group, while assisting those who were keeping their foot on the neck of others? Now the powers that be see anarchy approaching....because no one is benefiting other than the fat cats!!! Say you wouldn't do the same if you were in charge?? I love this.....it is amazing that the few of us who saw this coming, already knew!!

[-] 2 points by shield (222) 5 years ago

"So, when did the "people" ever have control over anything in this country in the first place...?"

When they were carrying arms against the British, during the revolutionary war. Shortly thereafter, they established a system with the potential to bring about the realization of all the faults of the system they were fighting against. Those faults have now been realized.

Am I advocating that the people of this country form a militia and defend their rights against US government? Not yet. First, we should mount an organized defense of our rights, under the law. If it is ignored, then there are two choices.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 5 years ago

Sorry, you all forget that it was the formation of those who governed that went against the British...it wasn't the people, it was the elitest....who had control in the first damn place....not the people!! Read the writings of Benjamin Franklin in the Philadelphia Letters.... Sorry, you all have been hoodwinked and still fall under that "rose colored glasses" syndrome that let them do what they wanted to do in the first place. The People have never, ever had a say so in this system.....get real!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl4j5xF-Js&feature=related

Oh, and while you are at it find out the differences of the Code of Federal Regulations for the United States Incorporated vs. The Constitution. Boy....their school system really did you all a disservice!!!

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 5 years ago

Are you suggesting that the Constitution for the United States is not intended to be a document which limits the lawful government's powers and secures the rights of the people of America?

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 5 years ago

Did you read the Codes? Have you read the Constitution? I mention two entirely different documents. What is all this nonsense regarding the Constitution? Here is what I posted.. "find out the differences of the Code of Federal Regulations for the United States Incorporated vs. The Constitution" Did you find any differences yet? While you are at it...make note of the time frames of the added Amendments. When one becomes educated on how this great nation came into fruition, and got its power, then one can get a better understanding as to the true economic structure of this great nation and what you are dealing with. I am suggesting that you READ!!!

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 5 years ago

I have read much of the USC and CFR, as well as the UCC and all versions of the Constitution. I am quite aware of the differences between the different versions of the constitution, the origins of those differences, and how and why the UCC, USC, and CFR are able to exist in the capacity that they do. My question to you in the above post was regarding the intended effect of the Constitution for the United States on the lawful government.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 5 years ago

Now...are we in a political science class right about now? Or are you asking me to predict the future?

The only thing I know for certain is that civilizations do rise and civilizations have also fallen..... So..... over 2000 years, this civilizations time is up..that is what all the hoopla regarding 2012 is about.....A New Era in time.....and it is taking place globally....this is what your so-called leaders and corporations refuse to let you see. Go to RT news, Aljazeera news. Asian News...European News and watch....All we get here in the states is fluff....how to wash your pets, or what is great for baldness, or how to lose 50 pounds by just eating meat!!! If it weren't for this forum it would appear to most that OW does not exist...yet it is covered regularly on Public Television stations globally!! I am not the Universal Law, and I don't profess to be....but I can tell you one thing....these things taking place now I heard about when I was a child...and so did many others I have discussed this with. So...my advice is people get with the future program or die trying to ignore it!!
Any effect the Constitution may have on the lawful government is UP TO THE PEOPLE of this country!!!! Over and Out....

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 5 years ago

Can't say I disagree with anything you've said in this last post.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

What else do you already know? Thanks for being so hush hush about Obama signing this executive order. I just felt like sharing this important piece of information. Knowledge is power.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

congress would never go for it

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

They have yet to call the president out on any executive order. It's a big club, and....

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

well yeah

just saying

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

this executive order circumvents congress.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

in the case of emergency when congress does not have time to respond

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

you're being naive, this executive is clearly written to circumvent congress and give obama the power to do whatever HE wants. congress can be convened in a short amount of time,....... obama clearly wants unlimited power an control over everything, everyone.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

If it included oil subsidies and trade agreements to send jobs overseas I'm sure they would have voted for it with flying colors.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

why would industry want the president to be able to take control of it ?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Good question Aguado.

Certain industry CEO's are in the back pocket of Washington. I'm sure they somehow approve.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

obama has shown that he has no regard for congress.if nationalizes the oil companies, you'll know excatly where he stands regarding the constitution.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Gosh, for almost 4 years now (R)epelican'ts have shown absolutely no regard for the office of the presidency.

I guess they should have tried working with him.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

the dems had control of both house and the senate for 2 years. they locked the republicans out of meetings. they lost the congress in 2010. the dems idea of compromise is to agree to everything they want to do. THEY do not compromise or work with republicans. ever.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I'd like to believe, but the (R)epelican'ts have set records for stonewalling for the last 4 years.

Records mind you, not just one.

That's records in over 200 years of this Nation.

And it crashed on their watch. That's very ugly.

For good measure, Bush even kicked the dog on his way out the door.

So stow the repetitive BS.

I don't love any of them, but Obama is a whole lot better than he's been painted by the "wrong wing" since the day he took office. With FLAKESnews and Limbaugh, leading the way.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

if you think obama is better , you're a statist.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I'm more of a Federalist. You're the Statist.

Although I have no idea what state you're in. Confused?

And yes, by all means, I think Obama is better than Bush, by a long shot.

No question.

Bush proved his nasty intentions when he kicked the dog on the way out the door, with the Worlds economy in a shambles.

Teabaggers are lying bags of shit.

They raised my state taxes to fund a corporate tax cut.

There ain't nothin' good about (R)epelican'ts.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

a statist believes in central planning by the federal govt. I do not. you obviously are not familiar with the meaning of " statist". you should have taken the time to look up the meaning.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Oh, sorry. I was using the applied definition, rather than the one applied through various isms.

I believe in the need for more power in the federal government rather than the states.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

Than you're a statist, same thing as a communist, fascist, nazi, socialist, all giving the govt . unlimited power. statists believe that a persons life and work belong to the govt.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I'm not an ism. I thought I told you that?

There are already States out there more corrupt than the feds.

Leave your isms BS behind. It doesn't matter. It is propaganda.

Everything else you pasted on me, I never said, nor do I believe.

Why did you attempt to do that?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

your own words,...................."I believe in the need for more power in the federal government rather than the states".................you're a statist, with no regard for the constitution , especially the 10th amendment.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

You keep applying the ism crap.

The civil war has been over for a while now.

Live with it. States are more easily corrupted that than the feds.

Take a critical look at Wisconsin and Michigan.

Burning up and ignoring State Constitutions at every turn.

Face the fact, that it's the "wrong wing" that hate those things.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

look up the definition of "statist", "statism".

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I'm not going to look up crap.

I've explained myself, more than once and all you can do is repeat yourself.

Try explaining you position, rather than tearing at mine.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

You have explained nothing. by saying you will not look up the meaning of a word ( that you do not understand) you confirm your pursuit of ignorance. if you were to look up the word , your non argument would disappear. your status as the #1 nitwit on this site remains firmly in place.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Keep following your propaganda isms.

I have explained myself.

You? Not so much.

You mush be in the highly confused state of (R)epelican'tism.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

stat·ism (sttzm) n. The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.


As long as our central ( Federal ) government is serving the people "TRULY" serving the people. I have no problem with statist control. That is how our leadership is supposed to be run anyway.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

THIS govt was set up to be a limited one. READ the constitution. obama & co only serve themselves.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

What you mean the president is happily playing patty-cake with Boehner and the other stonewalling repuds in office?

How dastardly. Bipartisan and all.

All the more reason for the people to take up their rights and continue the move against corruption.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

obama is anything but bi partisan,.............last year the republicnas gave him everything he wanted but obama turned it down so he could blame the republicans for his own failures.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

The sky is what color in your world??????????

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

central planning only serves the govt, NOT the people. have you ever read the constitution? the bill of rights? If you have than you would know that statism is the antithisis of the constitution.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Not so oh pointy headed one.

The Federal government was always set-up to lead and give direction on the true and proper coarse for this country. The only thing wrong ( really wrong ) is the corporate manipulation of "THE PEOPLES" Government, and the fact that the people are being left out of the process.

Fix that and this country can move forward toward health and prosperity for all. Even extending that out to our neighbors.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

statist woulds suggest division by state

regional elections of representatives

means a 10% minority opinion is not carried into the law house

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

look up the definition of "statism",..."statist."

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

boron is a solid at room temperature

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

What color is the sky in your world.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

it would be nice if their were one man at the top

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3721) 5 years ago

Equal branches of government? - Why don't they just add two more branches while they're at it - 4.) the Federal Reserve 5.) The top 10 boards representing the most powerful and richest corporate monopolies- oh wait they already did do that - just didn't publish those ones

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8851) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

When the order is executed I might think about voting for a Republican, but only if they spoke out against it.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

if the order is executed,. there will be NO voting because there will be no elections.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I wouldn't go that far. I suggest voting but not for a pro-war candidate.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8851) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I suggest voting for whoever can beat a Republican.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Yes because Obama isn't a warmonger that supports unconstitutional theft of our rights like the patriot act.

Believe it or not... all the shit going on in our country is not just the republicans doing. This is a process set up by both parties.

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall recently made a statement that Americans would be "Stunned" if they knew how the American Government is interpreting, applying and using the Patriot Act. Why would President Obama support this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV1k8np44KI

Obama and the GOP are bad for America. And congress and the supreme court. They've all been corrupted.

A REAL option would be out there if people didn't fall for the lie that the TWO PARTY system created. That lie is to get Americans to think that only republicans and democrats can win the presidency.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8851) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

If you really want to matter help me get rid of all the Republicans so we can split the dems and get the party we need.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8851) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

It has a lot more to do with the fact that somebody is going to be President, if you want to pretend you matter then tell me why should we help Romney become president by failing to vote for Obama?

Go ahead make your case I will read it.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

" if you want to pretend you matter then tell me why should we help Romney become president by failing to vote for Obama?"

Standard divide and conquer BS. If you don't vote from him it's like supporting them!!! BS. I don't buy it. That's how the 2 party system wants you to think. The only thing that is like supporting Romney is supporting Romney.

If you don't vote third party it's a vote for them. I can say that kind of bs too.

Why are people downvoting my comment about Obama? Can't handle some truth about Obama?

Sorry I can't vote for people with such a violent foreign policy from an administration that frequently suppresses important information crying national security as their reasoning over and over again.

You people are the one's voting for this. You can change it. If every democrat didn't support a pro-war candidate... maybe the wars would be over by now.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

.....Well it's over now

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22772) 5 years ago

We live in a very fearful world. I'd rather just take my chances.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 5 years ago

If not Obama as president then who? There is no one else that I know of so please enlighten me. OWS doesn't even have a leader.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Yeah, this thirty year push to fascism is all Obama's fault now. Can you say neo-con job?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

He's definitely doing a good job picking up where they left off

Name one other administration in the last "thirty years" that assumed the right to kill American citizens without charge or trial in our own land and on land we're not at war with.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Bush was worse, far worse. It seems to me the thrust of your message is anti-Obama, more than to advance any reasonable way forward. Why don't you outline a way forward for this movement over the next year - show some of that positive, critical thinking you say is being suppressed here. I don't see you being censored in this post.

[-] 2 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

True, but Obama is still complicit for continuing Bush's expansion of executive powers. His threatened veto on the NDAA for one is pretty much a hallmark of his M.O. Lip service to quell the masses, then quitely go along with the status quo.

He's surely one among many making the push, but by no means innocent.

It's a case of choosing the "lesser evil" for sure, but we do really need to keep moving forwards. Hopefully it could be the last time we have such a "decision" to make ;)

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Agreed emphatically! I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT ELECTING DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE THE GOAL! I only see it as a necessary expedient that will enable us to go forward and really fix this mess! This will not be done overnight, unless the people really rise up. I still have hopes for that, but think we also need a long term strategy, and that does not include letting the Republicans win this election.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

Totally! It's a deeper question of methodology too. I think we should be flexible and beat these f'ers at their own game. The time has come to exercise most, if not all options. And at the same time too.

Starting a political third party doesn't have to be the means to the end, but why not do it? It would be a start that can't be ignored, and especially a message that we're in for the long haul. We can keep up the protests & occupations all the while.

With the MSM blackout, we definitely need some more feet hitting the pavement and creative ways to reach the public. How about some old school door to door campaigns? Post up leaflets around town. Above all, we need to keep the discussion alive.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Right on the money Pops! We have to realize that these people have declared war of the citizens of America, and of the world. This is war folks, you don't say I won't do this, or I won't do that! You do every goddamned thing possible - short of violence - cause they got that angle pretty well cornered: anything short of violence to bring these people down. They are ruthless and will widdle us away, career by career, group by group until we're basically all a bunch of serfs at their beck and call.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

No one said I was being censored. No one said Bush was better. Nixon was a shitty president too. What does that have to do with Obama and his admin's abuse of power and war crimes? Civil liberties and war are very important to me when it comes to presidents. Obama has been an attack on both with the rest of the repubs and dems. When the ACLU is filing law suits against your administration for war crimes... that's not fucking good and it reminds me a lot of GWB.

Name one other administration in the last "thirty years" that assumed the right to kill American citizens without charge or trial in our own land and on land we're not at war with. Obama is the only answer.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Uh . . . Bush had Blackwater out shooting black guys in New Orleans because they comitted the crime of being hit by a hurricane. There has never been a private army in America before then, opperating on American soil. But all that - so soon we forget - has nothing to do with the point, which is called creating tactics for this movement that will work, so all this effort isn't wasted.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I would love links to that black water report.

My tactic includes not supporting pro-war politicians. It's my number one strategy. You still think I'm a republican plant? I'm just a person who wants peace not war. My strategy is also aimed at Obama because he is the current president. Bush can't be president in 2012.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

No, I don't think you're a Republican plant, I just think you need to give a little more thought to the actual process by which we can get from here to there, given the nature of where we actually are.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Then why have you called me a republican plant? You need to put more thought into your words or not resort to name calling.

Obama 2012 is not how we get to THERE. Obama has just been more wars, bailouts for fraudulent banks, profits for the 1%, lies, and war crimes... just like during the Bush administration but scaled back 20%

I'll give him some cred for a little good... but that little amount of good does not counter all the bad I've listed so many times now.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Well, we just go round and round here. I wish you would give me that alternative strategy that would help us move forward, but you just keeo coming back to the same message over and over - Obama Bad! This doesen't get anybody anywhere.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Obama 2012 is just more war... bailouts for a fraudulent system... and an attack on international laws and the constitution.

My strategy is clear. Spread a message of peace and only support candidate that represent peace. It's a simple message and a simple strategy. Most politicians that support peace generally are the type that don't seek to help the 1% over the 99%.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

It's a simple message, and a simple strategy alright, but it doesn't take reality into account in the coming election, because the number of pacifists on the ballot, unfortunately, is going to be about 5%. Not enough to alter the course of events. I agree with you philosophically, but disagree tactically, and as the F--king Repubs have shown us time and time again, it's strategy, not philosophy, that wins the day.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I will never take strategic advice from the repubs. They failed miserably with their birth control strategy and they lost in 2008 too.

Philosophy works. People just have to believe in what's right and act on it. That's why people voted Obama... they just had no idea a constitutional scholar would do so much to violate the constitution. We were lied to.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Okay, given the fact that we will almost certainly have either Obama or Romney, and that alernative will impact this movement greately, what do you suggest we do, even in this very specific area.

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/12/overkill_feared_blackwater_mercenaries_deploy_in

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Not support people that contribute to war. That's a great first step. Start small. Congress is a huge part of the problem. People need to rally locally to get behind a congress for peace. If you have a good congress you have a congress that will impeach presidents for violating laws.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

That means voting, I assume. You were just saying that we shouldn't do that, unless I misinterpreted you.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I never once said "don't vote."

I said don't vote for people who support war and work for the 1%

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Good, but that evades the question as far as the presidential vote is concerned.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

My message is a message of peace and not war. I'm going to see who's all on my state's ballot before I make a final decision as to who I'm voting for. I can tell you this for sure, whoever I vote for will not be a pro-war candidate. We're Bushing on to 12 years of wars. Sorry I meant pushing on to 12 years of wars.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

I agree with you completely here. Not only that we now have this vague term terrorist, which is an outcome of these wars, and a terrorist is simply whatever the State defines it to be. A terrorist has neither the leagal protection of a citizen, or of a combatant under the Geveva convention. That is a subversion of human rights, and I think a very intentional one created under the Bush Administration. They are finding every way around the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

yes it's very sick. and it's very disheartening to see Obama's administration carrying out so many aspects of the Bush administration. Obama's administration has done a lot to cover up illegalities of the Bush administration with the claim of "National Security." I was once an Obama supporter... but I didn't see the change in the right places. I just got a better public speaker.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

yep the dems and repubs got that hog tied

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

My belief, though I might be wrong, is that Obama will allow this movement to go forward without calling in the heavy guns. Both Romney and Santorum have reffered to this movement as "terrorists," and the implications of those words should be lost on no one! That should give people a bit to chew on when it comes decision time.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Yeah because Obama stopped the police brutality and didn't sign that new law making it illegal to disrupt government events. Of course that legislation mainly falls on congress, but I'd like to see Obama grow some balls and veto. If Obama supported OWS he wouldn't be doing what so much of OWS despises.

And yes Santorum and Romney are assholes. And Santorum has never read the first amendment.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

trumpka promised that his union members would be obamas army. he did so in obamas presence on the same stage with him.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Would that be Donald Trumpka?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

Richard L. Trumpka

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

No NO that was mitten unless this guy is really cracked.

The Donald. What a blight on humanity.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

If you ever get a chance see Lettermans skit - "super trump or monkey." Its hysterical!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I'LL have to look for that. He really has fun at the Donald's expense.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Yeah, I love it!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

If I rememberise correctly he said something about the Donald giving Mitten's campaign the kiss of death.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

You said it pal! If anyone in this movement doesn't vote, and we have goose stepping, breaking down your door fascism in 2014 they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

We have to throw the Neo-con artists out of Congress and the judiciary too. Let's investigate all the Neo-con judges, to see just how much they're on the take!

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

The point of this movement is to stop being INSANE. You really expect change by continually voting for the 2 parties that continually fuck our nation and start wars? Guess what, Clinton signed for the Financial Modernization act of 1999 which caused a majority of the financial problems in our country. He could have vetoed. Both parties work for the 1%. The republican freak politicians just make it more obvious. The failed 2 party system needs to end.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

No, I expect change by doing everything we can to forster change. What happened in NY today was great, and a big part of that change, but It won't work alone. I think the difference as to whether this movement faces a democratic, rather than republican government, is gravely important to it's success. Most importantly, throwing the obstructionist tea baggers out.

If you are really interested, read my post, "Forum Recommendations for Action."

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

So you mean do everything you can to support candidates that start wars and are responsible for the deaths of innocent people all the while serving the 1%? No thanks. I'd rather support real change.

It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. That's a great saying. Luckily we're in a country where we can use our minds and our friends instead of risking our lives.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Boy, you really put a lot of words in my mouth there buddy. If you want to know what I mean by change, please see my forum post - "Forum Recomendations For Action." In the mean time your obsessive one-note-johnny message against Obama is becoming pretty transparent. You offer nothing positive to guide this movement, and instead just focus obsessively on why we shouldn't vote.

I'm calling you out buddy. You're a Republican Party plant.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

You support a person who supports war and death. If you support that person you support those wars and death. You are a contributor to those by voting for a person who supports war and death. I'm not putting any words in your mouth. It's time to take responsibility for the people we elect.

I'm not a republican plant. The Bush war legacy is what started most of this mess. Obama just happens to be continuing it. OWS is not an Obama 2012 rally and it sure as shit aint a Mitt Santorum rally either.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

I know, what I have been trying to do is put together a plan of action that will actually work, and that deals with the world as it is, rather than how we would like it to be. That seems fairly simple to understand, and yet their sure seems to be a lot of people here who can't or don't, want to understand it

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Yes but Obama 2012 is not a plan of action. It's just Obama 2012. He's already got it in the bag. I swear the repubs this time around are so dumb it's a conspiracy to get Obama re-elected lol

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

They have super pacs that might yet surprize you when they really turn on the dirty media stuff. I've seen it happen before, and I never underestimate their ability of get it real close in the final innings, or to fix the vote, if necessary.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 5 years ago

Well I'd like real change too TMnemonic but I have learnt from bitter experience with parties that one has to start with philosophy. Desperate people will start to learn these basics and build up from that - but if we had funding to get the message out it would get out.

We need a leadership core of course but the masses, including OWS, will come round if we don't deceive them with false promises. We do have to provide full employment and decent remuneration for people - and that is going to take organization and the selection of people for character for particular jobs.

This doesn't mean we have to work people to death - just organize them in the wake of capitalism's crumbling.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 5 years ago

So you think Obama is best we have right now? I feel that he is the best we have now, but I wouldn't mind better.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

I wouldn't either, but not Romney or Santorm, or God forbid, Ron Paul. I don't think we're going to have better choices this time around. Hopefully we will next time.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Do you support the wars? Do you support war crimes that violate international laws signed by the USA? Do you support the murder of innocent civilians? Do you support a government that claims to have the authority to kill US citizens without charge or trial?

Then why would you support Obama or the GOP? Obama and the GOP are the worst options we have now.

No more dying children from our bombs. Vote for peace. Please don't vote for a war monger in 2012. Innocent people are dying in foreign lands because of our fraudulent politicians that "we elect."

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 5 years ago

There will always be war for a long time on earth until these long slowly drawn out issues finally resolve or the human race goes extinct. It is not up to me. There are many people who like to fight. It is that simple & is out of my control. Wisdom is knowing the things you can & can not change. War will not go away anytime soon for the human species. In fact the American Forefathers knew this and gave us an Amendment to make sure we would have the power to stop corruption the only way possible, WAR.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

The 10 plus year wars for oil and war profiteers in country's that didn't attack were not what the forefather's were talking about which is why most of the actions taken are considered unconstitutional.

[-] 2 points by Quark2 (109) 5 years ago

True can't argue with that. You are right & I agree. Solidarity!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Back atcha

[-] -1 points by BLOWCHUNKS (43) 5 years ago

Obama 2012.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

obama 2012 = fascism

[-] -1 points by BLOWCHUNKS (43) 5 years ago

I honestly don't care, as long as I get free stuff.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

parasite

[+] -5 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 5 years ago

Yep. You are a plant. I've long suspected it.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

Impeach Obama, and we would have Joe Biden. From what I hear, he is better.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 5 years ago

Biden feels more like a republican spy.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Look into your state's ballot when the time comes.

An easy guide to follow is, "Fuck the GOP and Fuck Obama." And you're most likely in good shape if you stick to that.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 5 years ago

I will, but I am for Obama as of right now. Thanks for inspiring me with your passion.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I was once an Obama supporter. But then I looked into his actions and how they differ from his speeches.

Here is a ton of info on the real Obama

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He supported the bailouts of a fraudulent financial system that is extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air for their own private interest, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

OBAMA Administration could grant criminal immunity to Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank, those responsible for fraudulent foreclosure practices that drove millions of Americans from their homes during the housing crisis. It's called a settlement.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165806/obama-brink-settlement-big-banks-and-progressives-are-furious

Obama's new campaign guy his a Wall Street lobbyist

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/#ixzz1cQ6oOt4U

"Is this the United States congress, or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?"-Dennis Kucinich

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It's a private for profit bank ran by frauds. Its a Ponzi scheme where they issue debt created from thin air and then they STEAL your tax money and put it in their wallets and their cronies' pockets. You know those trillions of dollars in government debt? Who do you think pays the interest on it?!?! WE DO! The Federal Reserve has no accountability and create trillions of dollars out of thin air for their own private interests all the while devaluing our US dollar. You don't see Obama trying to correct this fraudulent system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

In 2009, Obama himself appointed Michael Taylor as a senior adviser for the FDA even though Taylor had formerly served as a vice president for Monsanto.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc

His administration is also selling arms to the regime in Bahrain that is killing protesters.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/obama_quietly_sells_arms_to_human_rights_abuser_bahrain/

He extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

Obama also supports ACTA which is essentially a global version of SOPA that applies to all goods.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/

He never actually closed guantanamo bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty. The departure from Iraq was required by the 2008 Iraq-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement signed by Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and then-President George W. Bush and approved by the Iraqi parliament, giving it the status of law. Once the troops left Iraq, big oil stayed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

Obama also turned his back on whistle blowers even though before his presidency he said they should be praised. A good man in the NSA named Thomas Drake spoke out against a system in the NSA that violates the 4th amendment as well as also speaking out against fraudulent acts, wasted funds, and more... and Obama supported Drake to be imprisoned. Eventually the charges were dropped against Drake but the Obama administration as used the espionage act more than Bush. And let's not forget how Bradley Manning is in prison for exposing the murders of innocent people.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Obama also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I

He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

“This bill [the NDAA] authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.” - Congressman Dennis Kucinich

In reference to the passing of the new NDAA the Armed Services Committee released this,"the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations." More war for Obama!

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being involved with the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda ties with the Libyan rebels as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

NATO commander admits that "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists among the Libyan rebels. This officially classifies them as "associated forces"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw

Proof of inhumanity amongst the "libyan rebels" as they torture blacks for being black

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Here's an article with Ralph Nader on the unconstitutional actions by Obama and his administration against Libya,

"Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment/ Another good article on the topic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

And of course the republicans suck a lot... but the shittyness of the republicans doesn't make Obama a good president.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

Three words: Supreme Court appointments..

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Yes. And another one - Congress.

It's all very corrupt.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

You can't credibly assert that the two parties appoint even similar kinds of judges. You can't, not with a straight face anyway, say tat Ginsburg or Breyer as the same as Scalia or Thomas.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I can credibly assert that a majority of members from both parties work for the 1% and love bombing foreign lands, starting wars, and contributing to financial crises instead of creating real solutions to problems.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

Apples and oranges. Your assertion (which I happen to agree with) does not negate mine nor does is negate the importance of the courts.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Kagan doesn't make up for all the BS I listed above.

Also I never once "credibly assert that the two parties appoint even similar kinds of judges." So I don't understand your claim that I somehow asserted this.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

By asserting that the two parties are essentially the same regarding the effects of their actions, you fail to acknowledge that they are very different in regard to the appointment of federal, and especially, Supreme Court judges.

And while Kagan "doesn't make up for all the BS", the courts as a whole have a huge impact on all our rights. Currently, the court is solidly, by one vote, on the right. That one vote is pro-corporatist, generally anti-civil rights, pro-war, and in support of all the BS your and I oppose. The Federal Courts are stacked with a 55% majority of judges self identified as Republican.

It is not a good situation, to put it mildly. And unless the timing is just right, and luck is with us, it is not likely to change. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito have made no noises about retiring. (It is psossible, but unlikely that one or two of them will.) But GInsburg has. So has Kennedy. So has Breyer. If there is a Republican president in the White House at the time of GInsburg, etc, retiring, that court will become a 6/4 or even (Go forbid) a 7/3 right wing majority. That cannot be overcome in a lifetime, and the damage they will do will make today's bullshit look like a Disneyland park by comparison.

So Kagan may not "make up for" anything. But allowing a Republican into the presidency this next election to appoint a replacement or two on the Supreme Court, and dozens upon dozens of appointments on the rest of the federal bench, will make you wish for a return to the BS we are experiencing now.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

If every democrat was like Dennis Kucinich, I wouldn't be making the claim that I am.

Both parties support war.

Both parties support giving the federal government more power over our rights.

Both parties work for the 1%

Maybe if the democrat citizens in America didn't vote for pro-war candidates, maybe we wouldn't be pushing 12 years of war.

The republicans didn't pass the Financial Modernization Act of 1999 on their own. The republicans aren't the only people pursuing war over diplomacy. The republicans aren't the only ones repeatedly voting for the patriot act. Republican judges in the supreme court aren't the only judges saying it's all okay.

Both parties work for the 1%. One is just more obvious about it. That was my claim.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

I am not disputing the bulk of your claim in terms of the issues you raised. I am simply pointing out that there are other issues, that they are of critical importance, and ignoring them is dangerous. One can hate Obama for every reason you mentioned, but if either Romney or Santorum is elected instead of him, given how that will alter the makeup of the courts, you will be positively nostalgic for Obama.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

You don't have to vote Obama to have a good president. The democrat nominee and the republican nominee are not the only options.

If every democrat refused to support warmonger candidates that have repeatedly voted to give the federal government more power over our rights, we wouldn't have a democratic president that is a warmonger and has continually voted to give the federal government more power over our rights. That is my point.

Obama and Mitt Santorum are not the only 2 options. That's just what the 2 party system wants you to believe.

I just remembered you and I have done this type of argument before. There is no need to continue this argument. We will not agree with each other on this day.

I cannot support a pro-war candidate. I don't want anymore blood on my own hands. People need to take responsibility for who they vote for. I voted for Obama in 2008 and have since been greatly disappointed. I was rooting for Kucinich the whole time but he didn't win in the primaries and I went with the tactic that you're suggesting. Which is to vote for the person who will suck less instead of the person who is best for the job.

If we all voted for the best option, the best option would win. But we're voting for the lesser of 2 evils instead. That's a losing battle in my opinion.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

In reality, rather than wishful thinking, there are only two parties that have any chance of winning the presidency in the upcoming election. You say "If every democrat refused.......". That is such a big "if" it is completely unrealistic. At best what would happen is that the Democratic vote will be split, while the hard right vote will not be. And that means, right now, at this moment, the Supreme and Federal Courts will be stacked with so many people who wold uphold the things you and I object to, it will make the current court look benign by comparison.

Yes, we have to build a third party. But it has to be done in such a way as to be viable. It has to be done on the local and state level before it can make a legitimate run on the presidency. That kind of organizing takes time and real sustained effort. It takes the hard work of a generation. It is NOT an overnight thing.

It's not a question of voting for the person who "sucks less" but of insuring that one who would stack the court with fascists does not get the chance to do so WHILE we are building an alternative.

Splitting the vote will give you nothing but what you hate: a pro-war candidate. Voting for Obama will give you the same (but decidedly less so). A pro-war president is inevitable, no matter how you vote, in the upcoming election. But the other matters are not. And those other matters can make the difference between the very survival of this country (as well as the ability of OWS and other opposition movements continuing to exist), or its near permanent collapse into despotism.

(Btw, I supported Kucinich, too.)

[-] -3 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 5 years ago

Only for those so naive that actually still believe the system is repairable, and maybe not even really destroyed.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

It's not a question of repairable. It's a question of stacking the court with neo-fascists who could shut down OWS in a heartbeat. With Ginsburg about to retire, that WILL happen if a Repgnican gets into the White House. Who ruled in favor of Citizen's United? Who ruled against women in the Wall-Mart case? Both were not unanimous decisions. They were 5/4.

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 5 years ago

Oh, I see, nothing is broken. People only need vote for those you deem suitable.

"Shut down OWS", that's comical.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

You like hyperbole and putting words in other people's mouths, don't you?

Did I ever once say that nothing is broken? Find one syllable where I suggested it and I will retract everything I have ever posted here.

And do you think that if the court was stacked with more Thomases and Scalias they wouldn't effectively wipe the right to peacefully assemble off the books in order to protect the 0.01%? If you don't believe it, you're more naive than I thought.

[-] -2 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 5 years ago

You obviously do not read your own drivel and have slept through the last half a year....... you have no RIGHTS, much less even than the privilege to peacefully assemble. Of course that hasn't been proven to you since you haven't been out there and gotten arrested for it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

I guess you've been sleeping. Virtually all the cases against OWS members arrested have been entirely dismissed. With a stacked right wing court, they would still be in jail.

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 5 years ago

Oh, not all of them and many that stuck were bought by your democrats.

Fear not, Independents voted your boy in and they will vote him out.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

Virtually all of them. And NONE of them will be so lucky if the courts get stacked by the neo-fascists the right wing has in mind.

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 5 years ago

Screw your weasel words, bottom line is many have stuck and if a D or R was sticking you, your case would be the only one that mattered.

Besides, it's not like you are doing anything other than spewing your racist DNC hack shit all over the net.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

You really are one fucked up troll motherfucker. Racist DNC? ROTFLMAO. The DNC invented the Southern Strategy? And keeps using it? Really? Using race bating is the exclusive domain of one party, and it ain't the Democrats, idiot.

You area complete moron if you believe that the makeup of the court system won't effect you. And you have been entirely willfully ignorant if you can't see that the division on the courts over rights Go live in Somalia if you believe that institutions don't matter.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 5 years ago

Thank you for all the great info. I agree with you if it was a perfect world. Obama may not be a good president but he is the better president. Therefore, he is the one to vote for. He is better and has the power to beat the worse, therefore Obama is the one to vote for. It is not the best logic but we don't have the best democracy in America, so it is fitting.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

President Obama is a great President and has begun the slow process of unraveling the damaging constitutional infringements that GWB.s fear mongering "war on terror" has created. President Obama has begun the process of undoing 30 years of the 1% taking the 99%'s money and influence. Both these efforts will take years and years. We must do more to help this President by protesting, getting arrested, pushing compulsory voting, money out of politics, tax reform, debt forgiveness for the middle class. We should stop coming down on the guy who has begun the process.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Yes he does that as he continually supports unconstitutional bullshit like the patriot act and commits war crimes. Did you even read any of the links I posted? Specifically from the ACLU?

People like Dennis Kucinich are working for the 99%. If Obama wasn't a personal friend of the 1% he would be supporting real solution like The NEED Act, HR 2990

In his state of the union he kept saying "Congress, draft me that bill!" Well here it is and he never went around touting it like he did with his lobbyist approved band aid of a jobs bill.

This bill is real job creation, real universal healthcare, and it takes the control away from the banks.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

You won't see the Obama admin ever draft a bill like this. Obama is a pro-war centrist... or what I like to call a 1970's style republican.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

He should push more of the excellent bills you mentioned, and he should encourage supporters of these bills to pressure the rest of the government. the success of those bills require changes in the political mood of the country/congress. That has begun but requires years of sustained protests/arrests by the people.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

All Obama had to do to earn my vote again in 2012 is not continue the Bush war legacy. Instead Obama has bombed more countries than Bush and more countries that didn't even attack us. If he didn't do that, he'd have my vote. I can't support war. I refuse to. If everyone refused to continue the wars... the wars would be over.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

Nope. He ended Iraq war, Started the draw down in Afghan war. I am against war. I don't agree with all his actions. but I believe defended yourself and I believe in defended people from bullies (which is how I see our action in libya). Just stopping bullies. In & out. Stop the bully, protect the victims. No More War!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

It's not good when the ACLU is suing you for war crimes and saying things like this

""I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html"

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Increased the war in Afghanistan when he took office even though Osama was not in Afghanistan. Nothing in Afghanistan is better.

Read the status of forces agreement with Iraq from 2008 and then look at the withdrawal date. I give both Bush and Obama cred for ending the war in Iraq by the withdrawal date. Also 3 years to end a "dumb war" ? What kind of shit is that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Obama also supported and helped NATO take out Libya. And Obama has bombed Pakistan, and still does even though Osama is dead. Also Somalia, Yemen, and others.

What about all the innocent civilians dying in the drone strikes in countries that didn't attack us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xXj7YfLRx5I#!

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

Innocent victims are horrible. Bombing other countries is bad. But I recognize Pres Obamas efforts and real progress at undoing the Bush war footing, and the Bush fear mongering. he will get there. If we continue to pressure him with OWS protests. and if we Vote out pro war republicans

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

lol

the president could stop dropping bombs today

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

Yeah but the he won't get re elected. Can't do anything if he ain't in office.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Since when were democrats the pro-dropping bombs on countries that didn't attack us party?

If Obama stopped dropping bombs today, he'd regain the support of the ACLU and the far left anti-war liberals he's completely alienated.

And Obama fear mongers all the time. He always mentions how Al Qaeda wants to kill us and that they remain a threat.. How is that any different than when Bush said "the evil doers want to kill us" ?

Saddam is bad... we have to kill him. Gaddafi is bad... we have to kill him.

Both are fear mongers and war mongers. The fear is how they make dying innocent civilians sound better.

Gaddafi didn't have WMD's either. Remember? We used diplomacy and got him to not want a nuke.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

it's very strange

seems that he's grasping for straw

that worked for Bush post the attack on the Pentagon

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Saddam was bad. BTW - Bush and company. No WMD's Bush and company.

Gaddafi was bad. Turned military loose on the population. Obama - no boots on ground went after military vehicles and allowed the population to defend itself.


Bit of a difference - wouldn't you say?

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

You are mistaken. It was Bush fear mongered, and war mongered, this Pres ended Iraq war, is drawing down Fghan war, Did libya engagement properly. Avoids all out war. You are clearly anti Pres Obama. Thats your right. Bush and the Pres are opposites. Vote out fear mongering republicans

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

To DKA and the comment below...

Yes you're right. War crimes are okay when Obama commits them. What are the guidelines of attacking countries according to the constitution and international treaties again? Didn't we sign a bunch of stuff after WWII to make sure wars of aggression don't happen. But that's okay, we can attack countries that are not a threat because Bush was worse.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Obama support OWS? hahahaha that's a farce. He's got too much of Goldman Sachs' money to do that. Not to mention he'd rather throw money at Wall street instead of try and pass regulations to solve the problems.

I remember when he spoke out against the brutality against protesters in Egypt and then said nothing about Oakland.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

Goldman sachs and financial corp criminals hate this Pres. The wall st money dems have taken did not prevent the 1st laws regulating wall st in a long time. More will be done. But only through the efforts of Dems not republicans. War should be avoided. I don't mind stopping bullies. With a small footprint and with other powers, and approved by world/regional bodies. Left wing opposition groups should continue to put pressure on dems. but in the end they should be smart enough to vote the correct way.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Goldman sachs hate this president so much they gave him over a million dollars in 2008 and then Obama appointed Goldman sachs to key economic positions in his administration.

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

Also Obama helped congress pass deregulation in the Republican JOBS Act just this year. A bill that takes away protective regulations put in place after the ENRON fraud. Let's also not forget the bailouts.

You really are blind.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Consider a kiss of death - consider also they play both sides. Can't lose if you back a winner - whoever that might be.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 5 years ago

The dems take money from but are still hated by wall st bacause wall st knows the dems will attempt to put in regulations. the dems appoint wall st people but are still hated by wall st because of dem policy. Period. dems would have regulated more of wall st if not for republican wall st tools. vote out wall st lovin republicans.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

How do you feel about Assad? Should the world just let the asshole continue to war on the population? Or would a no boots on the ground intervention targeting military vehicles not be acceptable? Are you OK with any government slaughtering it's population?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

So you're suggesting we go to war with half the globe?

Should we start an epic war with China next for all the terrible crimes their leaders commit? Specifically in Tibet.

War is to be used for self defense when there is an active threat or an attack. Wars of aggression are illegal. It was wrong when Bush did it to Iraq, and it's wrong when Obama does it to Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

What - are you stupid? Knock out the vehicles that are being used to slaughter the population and let them handle the rest - like in Libya.

Stop slaughter of civilians and let them take care of the rest. Sounds fair to me.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

This is why I have a problem with what was done in Libya

Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda ties with the Libyan rebels. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

NATO commander admits that "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists among the Libyan rebels. This should officially classify them as "associated forces" under the NDAA of 2012. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw

Proof of inhumanity amongst the "libyan rebels" as they torture blacks on video for being black - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video

What was done in Libya was not a solution. They replaced a monster who kills all who oppose with monsters who kill all who oppose.

What? Are you stupid? Or is it to hard for you to see Obama is continuing the Bush war legacy. "We have a great military and we can take out governments." Iran is the prize in the center.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

That is a separate issue from stopping the slaughter of the civilian population by their government. Is it fucked-up over there? Hell yes. Should that make it ok for the government to slaughter it's population - I don't think so.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

valerie jarrett

[-] 0 points by Umong (0) 5 years ago

I would be interested to know why in 2 cases where the government entrusted the job of eavesdropping on ordinary Americans in their telephone conversations not only was this to private companies but how did these two private companies both just happen to come from Israel? I mean don't the other 195 countries in the world have similar skills ?

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/exposed_inside_the_nsas_largest_and

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Reneye (118) 5 years ago

That's it then folks. The writing is on the wall. This is usually the last measure taken before war.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Umong (0) 5 years ago

Is there anything left that is not controlled by him?

[-] -2 points by leonardsova (-24) 5 years ago

When the shit hits the fan, don't any of you city slickers head for the country, cause we will not feed you. If ya's got a good looking ole lady, then we will take care of her for ya.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

What is this the Hills Have Eyes?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Could be Zombieland. Care for a Twinkie?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

LOL - last box?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

It's the last box, until the next zombietroll invasion.......:)

I'll share them with you, as that won't take very long.

There's plenty to go around.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I am honored. Must keep up the energy level. They ( trolls ) may not be smart but they can be relentless. Troll Slapping is a good cardiovascular activity.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Yes it does, and troll juggling is good for the hand/eye coordination.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Are you a practitioner?

I am impressed!

( Shit that one had me laughing so hard I almost fell out of my chair )

[-] -3 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 5 years ago

Well this looks innocent enough!

I'm very sure it's quite necessary!

It must be, why else would he write it, much less sign it?

Maybe the Republicans made him?

[-] -3 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

I read the whole thing. this " order" is the groundwork for the take over of the usa. it's his instrument to declare martial law , suspend elections and make him dictator.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I wouldn't go that far. I'd like to think the people in our country wouldn't allow that, but they did sheep away when Bush took office against the vote of the people in 2000.

Also I'm not sure the purpose of this executive order. It's definitely a massive abuse of power. We'll see where the road takes us. My hope is that Americans will eventually wise up and stop voting republican and stop voting democrat and instead vote for what's right. The 1% tactic is divide and conquer.

[-] 0 points by Dumpthechump (96) 5 years ago

You can hope all you like TMnemonic but there's a REALLY big obstacle: - What's Right doesn't have election funding - only Rep. & Dem. & Kukuland have!

We are waiting for that relatively rich 2-15% to make up their minds. Perhaps Benny..yahoo will do it for them!

[-] -3 points by po6059 (72) 5 years ago

actually , the only purpose of ows is to "divide and conquer", the USA.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 5 years ago

Surprise, surprise....now how did you all let this get so out of control???